OK, so Sullivan was a nutcase, a poster boy for In Search of . . . The Next Loughner. One could argue that Mr. Sullivan was overdue for a visit from Johnny Law. But watch the whole report. At 4:00, CA DOJ Dude (in a ballistic vest no less) says “If we take guns from one person . . .” intimating that it’s OK to pay some not-so-crazy folks a visit, too. The DOJ’s reluctance to release any stats on how many ACs (Avon Calling) they performed or how many guns they confiscated is more than a little troubling. As is the reporter’s willingness to repeat the Agency’s assertion that there are “thousands” of gen-u-ine gun loons out there. Prove it.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

22 COMMENTS

  1. I feel news agencies should avoid “proof by anecdote” arguments, as a service to the general population.

  2. This is disgusting.

    So you get PTSD and you can’t have firearms. Men & women come back from war and suffer from this disorder. Will this be the way that they start to disarm us? Take our trained fellow Americans that served their country… diagnose them with PTSD and take their guns or not take the guns and show up a month later, cite them with felony and then tell the world about it.
    Women can suffer from PTSD after a pregnancy. Get into a bad car accident and you might suffer from it.

    Loughner was a sick SOB. How long before our government begins telling me that I am sick SOB too?

  3. “…weapons in bunches…”

    The guy had 2 handguns, 3 shotguns and 2 rifles and, 500 rds of ammo!! Wooo-hooo!

    I’m still trying to figure out why he was arrested.

    • I suppose he was arrested because somebody passed a bill infringing on his rights and he didn’t know about it.

      And that punk neighbor gives an anonymous interview painting the gun owner as some crazy guy… classic reporting. I guess they couldn’t find ONE neighbor to give an opposing viewpoint.

    • Lucky I don’t live in California. I have 2 handguns and four rifles plus about 5000 rounds of ammunition.

  4. Robert, This just doesn’t follow:

    “If we take guns from one person . . .” intimating that it’s OK to pay some not-so-crazy folks a visit, too.

    Nowhere does it suggest that it’s OK to take guns from a “not-so-crazy” guy. Is that why you object, the old slippery slope fear. Since the real and hidden agenda is to eliminate ALL civilian gun ownership, this would only be the start. is that it?

    Are you opposed to disarming domestic abusers too? Of course if we start with the most violent and dangerous ones, eventually anyone who raises his voice at the wife will be in jeapordy. Is that the problem?

      • Actually, he’s the resident troll. Yup, we feed him regularly and make sure that at least somebody in the universe is paying him some attention. Think of it as a good deed that actually goes unpunished.

    • Nice little trap you’ve set there Mike. I’m going to keep this simple…

      1. In America, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Until that time, all their constitutional rights should remain intact.

      2. You and I both know the argument here: if a law/police operation saves ONE child, then it’s worth it. “It” being the financial burden on society and the [at least potential] loss of rights of innocent people caught up in the crackdown. As a previous commentator pointed out, this operation is a waste of valuable resources that could be more effectively employed keeping PROVEN gun-wielding criminals off the street.

      3. There is such a thing as a slippery slope. There are tens of millions of Americans on prescription anti-depressants. More who have or are receiving therapy. Would you take their guns away?

      Think of it this way. The Second Amendment protects gun ownership in the same way that the First Amendment protects speech. In what situations would you muzzle an American’s right to free speech? The litmus test should be no less rigorous for gun rights. They are equal.

      • Sorry, but we’re not talking about the 1st Amendment. And the 2nd Amendment should not be used as an excuse to allow unfit people to have guns.

        Here’s another misleading argument on your part.

        this operation is a waste of valuable resources that could be more effectively employed keeping PROVEN gun-wielding criminals off the street.

        The operation we saw in the video was not necessarily being done at the cost of other operations targeting real criminals, although let’s not forget the guys here were REAL criminals too.

        It’s not an either/or deal. The cops go after active violent criminals AND they go after these guys who have already been judged unfit to have guns. Your “innocent until proven guilty” bit was misleading too, by the way.

        • Why not talk about the First Amendment? Do you believe that there should be less infringements on the 1st than the 2nd?

          I’ll concede the point on the either/or point, although these sorts of swoops are enormously expensive when compared to “normal” policing.

    • “Are you opposed to disarming domestic abusers too?”

      I might be. Depends upon where we want to place the boundary around criminal law. Should it be limited to defining and punishing violence against our fellow man, or extended to constraining behavior or conditions which might lead to or enable violence.

      We have obviously chosen the larger scope, but that doesn’t mean it’s sensible, or that we ought not reconsider the approach. At the very least we should recognize that the whole legal infrastructure meant to prevent violence is far more complicated, far more expensive, and far more prone to treading on liberty than the more limited approach of defining criminal violence and punishing the offenders.

  5. 500 rounds, for which firearm? They’d have a fit with my ammo stash.

    As for the slippery slope, they have already tried to get the VA to put the names of veterans that seek treatment for mental problems on the Fed database. That finally got ended because too many were refusing treatment for fear of losing their 2nd Amendment rights. Besides, the Sec of DHS has already called us potential terrorists and homegrown extremists.

    I’d rather it be easier for people to protect themselves than folks lose their right to own firearms due to Sen. Lautenberg’s misguided amendment. It is too easy to accuse someone of domestic violence and they lose their rights.

    • Seriously? That would keep vets who need to see someone the most from going to the VA. Plus, there are many levels of severity of PTSD. Mine is mainly bad dreams,crowds and slight over awareness.

  6. Don’t get me wrong, the first guy seemed bat shit insane. But a guy with a “unregistered assault weapon” who didn’t know? Thats doesn’t sound right.

    Btw long guns don’t need to be registered in California and that isn’t an assault weapon. It has a thumb hole stock, no flash hider, no barrel shroud, is semi auto, and for all we know could have only had ten round mags.

    • He might have seemed ‘bat shit insane’ but if he hadn’t committed any felonies what the hell is the big deal?

  7. Wow, the guy had a “trip wire” to warn him about incursions onto his property. He must be nuts . . . . or he couldn’t afford ADT. Did he have a record? No? So what was the beef again? Oh, I remember. He’s a veteran with PTSD. Like a couple of hundred thousand other guys that our country sent out to fight and then screwed.

    And the second guy had a DRO from how many years ago? Ten! Ten freakin’ years ago. You gotta be kidding me. He wouldn’t have gotten ten years of probation for bank robbery.

  8. … unregistered AK47 Assault Rifle …

    There’s no registration requirement for rifles in Kalifornia, right? So you need to register just the rifles that assault people?

Comments are closed.